and given warning that if the Supreme Court strikes down his health-care law it would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary” decision

I am really disturbed by this, and I think that democrats should be as well. Threatening the Supreme Court is either ineffective, in which case it is a frivolous bit of hackery, or it could actually do something, a rather uncomfortable notion.

Attacking the Supreme Court and trying to undermine public support for it has results that matter far more than a single ruling you disagree with. The Court has been there to protect civil rights in cases like Lawrence v. Texas, Brown v. Board of Education, and Roe v. Wade- rights that I think that democrats would admit are far more important than Obama's problems with his healthcare bill.

Trying to remove support for an institution that often has to take on public opinion in order to protect at risk groups, to do it's job, is dangerous. Although you may disagree with Citizen's United, it was an attempt by the Court to protect the right to speak freely. You may dislike how it is sometimes applied, I think it is an important amendment, and it's a good thing that we have an institution that can protect the right to say things even when they are unpopular.

Threatening the Supreme Court is exactly how democrats got their new deal. Obama and company think that the Bill of Rights is important (except for the 2d, 9th and 10th Amendments), but see the limited grant of power to congress as an obstacle to be overcome.

Both parties love/hate judicial review when it supports/threatens their substantive policy. Article III judges do not depend on public opinion or support to do their job. They depend on lifetime tenure.

Didn't Lincoln " ..threaten the ..." Supreme Court over the Dred Scott Case, when it held unconstitutional the pivotal Misouri Compromise Henry Clay championed, and whom Lincoln admired, that was holding the Nation together the 1850'? Presidents always have disputed the power of the Court, the difference here is that Pres Obama isn't trying to save the Union, as Lincoln, he is trying to destroy it as any socialist fascist must do with a capitalist economy underwritten into the Constitution.

The support for the independence of the Supreme Court and cries of activism seems to flip-flop for each party supporters as the balance of power between liberal and conservative judges change and what the current balance and latest decisions have been.

When people can predict the votes of the individual judges fairly reliably even before the hearing has started with just a "swing voter" or two, then there is a problem already. In theory, every one of them should be a "swing voter" for each issue. Until then, every SC battle and decision will be a political battle with people alternatively supporting and decrying the Court based on whether their view is currently supported by the Court.

If some people believe that Obama's words have any influence on the decision, then it is because they already know and believe the SC decisions to be political. To claim the independence of the SC then is just hypocrisy arising from a confidence in where they think the decision is going to go. That could switch suddenly based on the decision.

If, for some reason, Kennedy swings towards the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the same people who have supported the independence of the SC will cast it as being activist, over-reaching and being politically influenced. And when such flip-flop happen over and over, SC never had any support for it other than from a recency bias to accuse someone of undermining it, did it?

I agree. The system of checks and balances is based on human nature and people jealously guard their power.

The mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Obama's comments might be just enough to send one of the liberal leaning justices over to the side of the likely majority. I'd love to see a 6-3 or 7-2 decision. I doubt we will, but wouldn't that send the pundits for a loop.

Good for you. Over the weekend, I watched a seminar with the ACLU at Cardozo Law on CSPAN. I didn't agree with everything that they had to say, but I was impressed by some of their principled stands. I did not know, for example, that the ACLU had put in an amicus brief on the freedom side of the Citizens United case. Mr. Romero articulated the ACLU's position that expenditure should be unlimited and reasonable contribution limits are ok, and followed up with his personal position that even contribution limits abridge first amendment freedoms. Bravo.

Mr Romney can't really challenge Mr. Obama on any major policy issues. Mr. Obama has good advisers who can read the political winds (i.e. Clinton's people), which means he can get in front of any identifiable change in public opinion before Mr Romney can capitalize on it. The best way to attack Mr. Obama would be to replay all his campaign rhetoric from '08 which he ended up not delivering on at all. If nothing else, Mr Romney could easily prove that Mr Obama is just as much an "etch-a-sketch" candidate as he is. Beyond that, his campaign slogan might as well be "Like Obama, but twice as white", hardly sufficient to win.

People don't make decisions on whether someone has delivered on an ideological promise in this polarized world. When people vote for a candidate, they do so because that candidate is the only one that can deliver for the ideology they have. A candidate under-delivering on such issues is still the preferred one compared to the other who will not deliver for that ideology at all.

You think the unions are going to vote for Romney or the evangelicals for Obama regardless of results?

Then there is the independent or undecided voter making a decision on issues that can be persuaded by either candidate. I think this is largely a myth (except for a very small population). All the candidate can do is whether they can persuade such people to come and vote at all because those people are still going to vote along ideological lines if of they come and vote. So Obama has to rally the left ideological base and Romney the right ideological base. The negative ads are designed to make some of these on your side angry enough to come and vote for their ideology even if they don't believe in you and some of these on the other side stay home with a sense of futility.

The rest of the campaign is just a roadshow for the benefit of the media, political pundits and bloggers.

Romney is easily the most palatable of the Republican candidates, but even then his campaign is running on exaggerations, distortions, and any cheap shot they can fling towards Obama. Really the Republicans as a whole, with their sickening tactics and rhetoric, don't deserve to gain the White House anytime soon. It's too bad, since Romney really does look quite presidential (and so did John McCain).

Besides the fact that I think Paul Ryan's budget is indeed a case of work towards social Darwinism, I think it's somewhat ironic for the Republicans to be accused of any Darwinism - given their enduring resistance against evolution and science.

Yes. From both sides we have people auditioning to be Magician in Chief. The other side, of course, is practicing witchcraft and the dark arts of socialism.
-Abra-kadbra Ala-kazam!
Oh my God, he turned one of the Republicans into a Newt! Obama, you Warlock!

Fair or not, Obama is no Clinton, Dole was no Romney...I'd say that Romney has a shot if he can stop blinking so damn much after every speaking point and the pained smile hurts him more than he knows...What the man says makes sense, his delivery could use work, yes, but I do believe that he will improve opportunity for everyday Americans and even if he believes that everyday Americans are pawns doesn't matter much to me if he utilizes his front line properly

They've got a right wing Democrat in their midst. But they are so busy calling him a "socialist" that they won't take Yes for an answer. He pushes thru their proposal for health care, and suddenly it's a threat to the nation.

Romney will lose because his party has become disconnected from reality. And has forced him to sound similarly disconnected in order to win the nomination. All he has to hope for is a major disaster outside human control -- if he gets the right one, people might vote for a change.

Last clown standing: Mit-da-Twit! Yoohoo!! (Heee-Hawn?)
So if the rich male version of Maria Antonnete, prevails come November, will he feed cakes to the unemployed & working poor, like his self-absorbed French counterpart?? Or maybe he'll suggest caviar & pink champagne, this time round! Saloot!!

No, poor unemployed Americans need someone to take the boot of big business off their throats. After 8 years of Bush's tax cut, spend and deregulate bringing us nothing but debt, unemployment and lower wages, America needed a strong government intervention to stop everything from crashing in a Herbert Hoover style catastrophe.

When you have something to add besides waving your hand that it will all work out and childish name calling, then maybe you should try again.

Not only was the economy in free fall, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs each month, if you bother to even glance at real income over the last decade for the majority of the country, it was going down. The wealthiest of the wealthy had plenty, everyone else was being squeezed. This was true before Obama took over, not when he took over.

Every credible economist on the planet has acknowledged that the end of the Bush administration was marked with runaway growth in unemployment and a massive deficit caused by 8 years of tax cut and spend.

If you bother to actually look at the evidence instead of using the view from your window as proof, you would know this.

Your disrespect and impoliteness adequately described you. I agree you should support Obama. I will not waste my time showing you. You are neither my relative nor my friend, I have better things to do with my time.

These days, I spend my spare time back in my immigrant community educating them – particularly new Americans. They need to know the America they risk everything to come for is now at risk with Obama in charge.

You mean you go to impressionable people to the same spew the blatant lies and disinformation you provide here? How very generous of you.

I see nothing disrespectful about calling a lie a lie. If you feel you are entitled to lie to people without being called out, that is your problem, not mine. And show me what, that you don't know what you're talking about? That even though GDP was -8.9% in Q4 of 2008, the economy was doing well? That just because middle class income peaked in 1999 doesn't clearly disprove your statement about people having more money to spend at the end of the Bush administration?

Who cares? You keep saying that like it's supposed to mean something other than the fact that I point out your lies as lies.

I don't see what my nationality has to do with anything. But I would say I have been perfectly civil, which is more than I can say of most of your comments on this article. If you think calling a liar a liar is uncivil, again, that's your problem.

And for someone who has better things to do, you do seem to spend a lot of time here responding to comments by whining about how unfair it is that your lies are being point out as lies. I'm out sick today, what's your excuse?

As this is going to be my last comment, and unlike you I mean what I say, I have to ask what you're talking about?

I don't see any disrespect in calling out a lie, nor do I find it impolite. As for reading carefully, when you make provably false statements and proceed to make further statements with no relevancy to the issue, no amount of careful reading can decode what is being said.

Maybe this time you could try saying something other than how disrespectful and impolite it is to point out your lies.

My recollection is that, by the last year of Bush's term, the economy was in freefall. Which is why Bush pushed the TARP legislation which bailed out various businesses -- he was trying to keep the mess from getting worse. A mess that policies (not all, admittedly, driven by him personally) during his administration had had a major part in causing.
Now it's true that under Obama the economy has not recovered very fast. On the other hand, that is true of any recession in the past half century which had financial, rather than supply and demand, causes. Those just take longer to recover from. They also tend to have employment recover slower than business in general.
It may also be worth noting that private-sector employment has been rising for the past couple of years. The reason that unemployment stay as high is it does is simply that government employment is still shrinking. Government is getting smaller -- hard to oppose that!

jouris wrote:...(1) My recollection is that, by the last year of Bush's term, the economy was in freefall. Which is why Bush pushed the TARP legislation which bailed out various businesses... (2) Now it's true that under Obama the economy has not recovered very fast... (3) The reason that unemployment stay as high is it does is simply that government employment is still shrinking. Government is getting smaller -- hard to oppose that! [I added the numbers to your comments so I can reference them.]

* * *

Jouris, point (1) you made: I agree, the economy slow down was indeed during the last and a half year of Bush. No disagreement there. The big difference I saw was one of mood. Bush’s slow down was view as cyclic. The small businessman I worked with and my small businessman friends were under stress, but they were not in a panic. Slow down was within their experiences and something they dealt with before. It was the massive change in direction (regulatory and general attack on the small businesses) that put them into panic mode. (By general attack, I mean the constant pounding of them being the evil rich, blood suckers sucking the employee dry, etc., that kind of talk.)

As many small businesses do not have a legal department, many of them are not functioning with full information at hand; nor can they afford the per diem legal consultation. I found that they often exchange info (including association newsletters and such) rather than seeking actual legal advice. Once when one reacts, the rest are prone to reacting as well amplifying negative reactions. Obamacare send everyone into a tailspin. I saw the "circle the wagons" mindset coming in and setting into concrete from most of the business folks I knew. (Yeah, knew, past tense. Too many threw the towel in altogether.)

I would say later days of Bush era, the small leak was growing, economy certainly was slowing, but the bottom didn’t felt out yet. Could have; but not yet. The waves of Obama regulations and anti-business talks were when I observed the bottom dropping out. Many were under stress already, obama cracked the will for many of them to keep fighting.

Granted, personal experience may not reflect the larger picture, but personal experience is the strongest driving force.

Your point (2); to be frank, I have seen no recovery. I service small businesses. The mood has not change, the closings have not stopped. I accept that there is the possibility that it is just my geographic-area not picking up like others; but if you look at the U6 (which includes the long-term unemployed), that number is barely moving. The critical number “how many people are working” is still down more than 2 million comparing to the day Obama took office. I agree that jobs have been added, but rarely do the additions exceed what it take to absorb the new-grads, and even rarer does the number grow at a pace to even begin to reabsorb the unemployed.

Your point (3); government did not shrink – comparing to the day Obama took office. Excluding healthcare, government was about 18% of economy whereas it is at about 24% now. (Numbers from early 2012 instead of newer – there may be more recent numbers I missed).

Jouris, perhaps our frame of reference is just too different. Living in a residential enclave among industrial/commercial areas, all I see are closed door that were open prior to Obama. I have two exits out of my enclave both about 1.5 miles to the highway. On both roads, all I see (>75%) are empty or near-empty parking lots. A very depressing sight indeed. I sure hope you are right that we are recovering. I sure hope you are right...

As you say, personal experience colors all of our views. A year or two ago, the potential customers of the small business I work for were all saying that, much as they were interested in our products, they were in a spending freeze. Last summer, they started calling and asking for quotes to put into this year's budget. Now, they are working thru their procurement processes -- which in a big company takes an unbelievable amount of time, but at least it is going forward. So for us, things are definitely picking up -- on current trends, we may double our revenue this year.

As for government shrinkage, I apologize for being unclear. I was not trying to suggest that the Federal government was shrinking. Rather I was thinking of the state and local governments. At least here (California) they have been, and continue to be, shedding lots of employees.

Whether this is a good thing, as far as them doing the things that one expects (maintaining the roads, policing the community, supporting the schools), is a matter of some debate. But there is no question that they are cutting severely and repeatedly.

My overall worry is that here again the Republicans are putting forward an individual with insufficient background, knowledge and experience, making him an easy target for manipulation by the great financial and economic forces operating behind the curtains.

A guy with a MBA, Law degree, and real life business experience, able to speak two languages, with experience as a govenor and as Olimpic chief has insufficient background and experience - sounds far more qualified than the present president.

Romney clobbers Obama on useful real-world experience. I hope Romney gets more mileage this election cycle out of his 2008 speech where he 'reviewed Obama's resume'. "Community organizer..." - that was a wonderfully delivered line.

Is this a joke???? Romney is more qualified to run the country than the present incumbent who basically ran the neighborhood bake-sale before being elected. Obama just happened to run in a year where everyone (no matter what party) hated the incumbent and wanted any change, no matter what. That hasn't turned out so well, but live and learn.

cynthia33 wrote "...Is this a joke???? Romney is more qualified to run the country than the present incumbent who basically ran the neighborhood bake-sale before being elected..."

* * *

Cynthia33, hate to tell you, someone who ran just ONE neighborhood bake-sale would have more business experience than Obama had when Obama ran for office. Obama's performance in office shown, he sure could have used some business experience, bake sales or even a lemonade stand.

Re: “stop by the gas station, just take a look at the prices. And then ask yourself, four more years of that?” -- As opposed to what? Like what they would be if we get into a war with Iran, destabilizing the Middle East? Or if we reversed policies that were set up in order to shift the U.S.'s energy needs from oil to other sources, thus prolonging reliance on a fading commodity that is in increasingly high demand elsewhere? Yeah, I think I'd take the "that."

It just shows how the media can cause people to panic by all these "fetaures" on "outrageous" gas prices etc...

Don't even get me started on the rhetoric of how a president causes the oil prices to rise, I don't think we'll be happy until we have subsidized $1.97 a gallon prices like Algerian but we'll probably still complain then!

locke wrote ...Re: “stop by the gas station, just take a look at the prices. And then ask yourself, four more years of that?” -- As opposed to what?

* * *

As oppose to someone who knows how to manage the economy; as oppose to someone who can do a better job in providing America with the needed energy for her to be productive.

Obama may be good at community organizing, but he had shown governing is beyond his ability. He clearly does not understand how the economy works and clearly is not the person for another four years. America needs to send Obama packing so America can work again.

A war with Iran might not destabilize the middle east is we take control. Iran has been a big part of destabilizing the middle east for decades. As I told someone a few weeks ago " and we still haven't gotten them back for taking our hostages in 1978", the thing is they haven't evolved from 1978...they are still primitive monkeys...primitive monkeys with a nuclear weapon is a huge problem.

Yeah, and look how successful we were in taking and maintaining control in Iraq and Afghanistan. You may want vengence for something that happened decades ago. But anyone who starts looking at the slights of history, and arguing about who did what to whom first, has probably got a poor argument (and too much time ont heir hands). If there is no balance of merit at the current time and inthe current circumstances it is probably a bad idea, regardless of the complaints of the past.

No; everybody is "stupid" when gas price rises. When Bush was in, was exactly the same reaction from the opposition. It doesnt matter how much is repeated that a US president really has no control on the market prices of gasoline - but since democrats did it for politica points, then we do it now. Come shoot me.

Oh no, you have it backwards. I said it is impossible for a president to LOWER gas prices. It is perfectly possible to raise them, either by taxes, or in G.W. Bush's case, in unnecessary and strategically stupid military engagements in the Middle East.

Agreed. I always thought Bush was a natural target in the oil debate because of his oil background and penchant for revenge on old middle eastern allies. Still, consumption drove prices then just as they do know and I was stuck in the unenviable position of defending him.

I also don't buy the logic that if the democrats did it, then it is okay for us to as well. I know people are going to blame on Obama everything that hasn't gone perfectly in the last three years. It's just how it is. But I will defend myself and those who believe that this president has not the power to significantly alter the oil markets such that it will lower or even stabilize prices in America. I won't back down in the face of those who fall back on the predictable "they did it then, so that makes it alright for us to do it now."

He [Obama] has hit out at the “social Darwinism” of the budget plans put forward by Paul Ryan, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin who hogged the limelight with Mr Romney this week, and given warning that if the Supreme Court strikes down his health-care law it would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary” decision>

It unprecedented that a sitting president would "warn" the U.S. Supreme Court about anything. Especially during a news conference with Steven Harper and Felipe Calderon at the White House.

Yes. If I find something really discouraging about the Reps, and Mitt Romney in particular was this BIG wasted chance. I understand they were very busy with their campaigns prior to the elections last night - but if I've been Romney (or even Santorum or Gingrich for that matter), I wouldve pounded for ever, 2 full days non-stop on that Obama's barbarity of threatening the Supreme Court. I wouldve used the victory speech to attack obama for it:

"Look this IS the kind of guy we have; an AntiAmerican, a desdainer of the American Institution, an Anti-democratic president, a dictator wannabe, a guy that is willing to destroy America as we know it to implement his socialist agenda by force, etc.".

Instead they led obama insult them with this social darwinism thing. That is just stupid and retail politics - but ATTACKING and threatening the COURT? That is really serious. "The Constitutional Lawyer" that didnt even suspected for a minute that his law could be "unconstitutional"???? Get me those Obama school records, RIGHT NOW!

"Look this IS the kind of guy we have; an AntiAmerican, a desdainer of the American Institution, an Anti-democratic president, a dictator wannabe, a guy that is willing to destroy America as we know it to implement his socialist agenda by force, etc.".

It's a shame that it's our responsibility to cure k.a.gardner's ignorance. For the record, FDR not only threatened the Supreme Court after several early pieces of New Deal legislation were declared unconstitutional, he introduced legislation through his surrogates in Congress to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court (contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution does not specify that there be nine justices) so that he could "pack" the court with supporters of his legislation. I'd call that far more than a threat.

So how did Obama "threaten" the Supreme Court? Did he threaten to give them noogies if they don't uphold the constitutionality of the ACA? Send them bed without dessert? Talk is cheap, folks.

This is a bit off topic, but since the article mentions it: Is anyone else getting annoyed at Obama's attempts to put public pressure on the Supreme Court? Striking down the law would be unprecedented? Hardly. Obama is factually wrong. Why does he keep saying this stuff?

Because he doesn't actually know that the Supreme Court can do that? Highly unlikely.

Because he thinks the Supreme Court is going to make its decision based on reading the opinion polls? Also unlikely, though for a former community organizer, it's just barely possible.

Because he wants to organize people against the Supreme Court? I sure hope not; that would be an attempt to overturn the Constitution by putting people in the streets.

Because he wants people to vote for him in the next election? Now there's a motive I can believe. But how would this work? I think the pitch will be "Those evil people in the Supreme Court overturned our wonderful healthcare law. So vote for me, because I'll be able to nominate better people so we can get that decision overturned."

I'm annoyed by everybody's attempts to put pressure on the supreme court, Obama included. Well, unless it gets Scalia to turn around and do the Italian equivalent of flipping the bird to reporters again. That was just awesome.

I'm annoyed as well. I think it's more laying the groundwork for his response if it IS overturned; it wasn't that the law was originally un-Constitutional, of course not...the Supreme Court made an unprecedented decision!

Judicial review is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Nor is it implied therein. It came about decades after ratification when in Marbury v. Madison, Judge Marshall performed a judicial sleight-of-hand, held his breath, and discovered he had gotten away with it. But, judicial review was used exactly TWICE in American history from 1789 until the Civil War: the Marbury decision and, then, the Dred Scott Decision (which, BTW, helped bring on the Civil War.)

Since those days the Court has constituted itself as a standing constitutional convention and has paralyzed Ameican politics by removing one issue after the next from democracy and putting, instead, in the hands of nine elderly, unelected (Obama was right) people who meet in secret.

Liberals loved this whole thing when the Court was on THEIR side! they loved the Pentagon Papers decision and Roe v. Wade. Hooray for the Court!

Now, however, the shoe in on the other foot. The Court,in effect, appointed George W. Bush president and has transformed politics through its Citizens United decision. Now, it may transform politics again if it strikes down Obamacare. Now, B.O. and the Left cry "Boo for the Court."

By all means, overturn the Constitution by putting people in the streets! Maybe we'll actually get elective democracy back!!

Obama using speeches to influence the Court does not undermine judicial independence. In order to undermine judicial independence he would have to punish judges that rule against him.

FDR's court packing scheme would have undermined judicial independence if he had succeeded. Obama's claim that overturning Obamacare would be unprecedented looks like a feeble attempt to adjust the trajectory of an independent court.

The Heritage Foundation said a national mandate was necessary to reform health care. Numerous high profile Republicans agreed. I'm sure you don't watch the Rachel Maddow show, but she showed at least eight videos of Republicans saying that "the mandate" was an absolute necessity. One of those people was George W. Bush. You can deny facts all you want -- they're still FACTS. The GOP looks like complete idiots in this entire debate -- and major, lying hypocrites.

"Case in law and equity arising under the Constitution" could reasonably be interpreted to apply to executive actions, not legislation. In fact, that's the most common case. Whenever the DA prosecutes a case, the court is hearing a case in law arising under the criminal code. Whenever you sue for a slip and fall, the court is hearing a case in equity arising under the common law. In neither case is the law itself necessarily on trial.

I don't know if any Republican or the Heritage Foundation said a mandate was "necessary." Many favored it though most Republican voters did not. Democrats once favored the Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, repealing Glass-Steagall, and racial segregation. These things tend to change.

Obama is a bullshxt artist, he convientently forgotten most of his promises he made 4 years ago.

Romney made $240 million dollar from his private equity fund by buying many small companies, lay people off to increase profit, then sold the stocks, filed bankruptcy. Moved the money to his Swiss accounts and Caymen Island accounts.

Obama's problem is that he refuses to see Republicans as enemies who respect nothing but power; he keeps trying to work something reasonable out with them. But the current dynamic punishes compromise and rewards intransigence; and all managers know that rewarding A while hoping for B is a fool's errand.

I've lived in this country for more than 20 years, and cant, for the life of me, remember ONE president or public official calling the opposition "enemy". Obama did, but then again, Obama is a "First" on many platforms...

Yes, Romney is a better choice than all candidates except Huntsman. Passing comments dripping with opinion are an over-simplification. Let's face it--I'd rather have Romney run the White House than the current resident.
I can't wait for the United States to move on after the fiasco of the last 4 years. Charisma is no substitute for executive experience.

Republican voters and politicians were calling President Obama's first 4 years a "fiasco" before he even took office. He could have cured cancer, balanced the budget, paid off the debt and they'd still be calling it a "fiasco". And all of this in the shadow of George W. Bush's 8 years in which everything went wrong. The GOP has become a party whose platform is pure hyperbole, a political discussion with 7 year olds.

Lanna wrote "...Republican voters and politicians were calling President Obama's first 4 years a "fiasco" before he even took office..."

* * *

You are right Lanna, it is not a fiasco. It is a disaster.

The day Obama took office, there were more people working; three years of Obama, we have less people working. The day Obama took office, we had far less debt, three years of Obama, and we have record debt. The day Obama took office; there were far fewer poor today and far more rich, and now we have more poor than far less rich translating to less jobs and opportunity. The day Obama took office, we are not the clown of the world; three years of this bumbling apologist, we are a joke.

In three years, Obama logged a decreased in every positive indicator (worst unemployment, lowest average income, etc) and increased every negative indicator (debt, homeless, unemployed, food stamp, racial tension, etc.).

Even disaster may be an understatement. It was no fiasco, Lanna, you are right, it was an epic failure. We are living in historic times. The Obama years will be remembered as the worst since the depression, and a time where our liberty are under attack.

The worst recession since the depression was Jimmy Carter. Obama is on trace to surpass Carter and make these last four years worst. More people were working the day Obama took office than today.

When Obama took office, the economy was at a down turn. A cyclic down turn that businesses while not happy but was not scared. Obama took a cyclic down turn and transformed it into a historic economic disaster. When Obama took office and started his war on small business, that is when people ran scared, threw the towels in, moved or closed up shop.

Small business start ups is at a 30 years low! Long term unemployment is historic high. Work force participation is historic low...

America deserves better. Millions of people without a means to make a living! This is just plan un-American to have an economy like this. I don’t care if it is Romney or a gold fish, I vote for a gold fish over Obama. I look forward to sending Obama back to Chicago.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the Party of Lincoln has become the Party of Jefferson Davis. Both in terms of ancestry (who the base is and where they are) and in terms of what they believe and how they act, that's more accurate than invoking Hamilton or Jackson.

As absurd as quibbling about what historical personage best qualifies political parties, I would argue that Davis isn't a good one. Yes, he's a prominent southerner, but Davis is too dignified a man to serve as the forbearer of these loons. Jackson has all these malformed populist sillinesses that seem so current. For instance, he fired thousands of federal employees, claiming that he was fighting some sort of anti-american elite interests, and then replaced them with his friends. He loved fighting and reached out to American's belicosity. He positioned himself as a 'man of the people' against an out-of-touch urban elite, while further empowering an elite of wealthy slaveowners like Davis. His economic ignorance caused a recession when he decided one day that the government would no longer accept paper money, causing the money supply to crash overnight.

The Hamilton bit comes from the fact that the commercial classes have always supported the Republicans, along with the Whigs and Federalists before them. It just used to be that they supported the Republicans against this idgitry, and argued that we should have reasonable roads and taxes and regulations. Now they are for it, it seems.

The first paragraph is a little silly. All of Mitt Romney's victory speeches have been about the president's economic record and a series of non-sequiturs. The only signal is that the rest of us now think the general election has started.

At times, Santorum and Gingrich made some noise, but it only took a couple of weeks of people remembering it was *Rick Santorum* and *Newt Gingrich* for them to reluctantly decide to go for Mitt Romney.